How to find the radius of a circle by knowing two points and its arc length

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the radius of a circle given two points on its circumference and the length of the arc between them. Participants explore various methods, including geometric constructions and numerical approaches, while debating the feasibility of obtaining a solution using elementary methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about methods to find the radius, questioning whether numerical, algebraic, or geometric approaches are applicable.
  • Another participant suggests a geometric construction involving isosceles triangles and angles formed by the two points and a point on the arc, but acknowledges limitations in this approach without using the arc length.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the ability to find the radius with the given information, noting that the arc length and the positions of the points are critical to the solution.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of using transcendental equations, with some arguing that elementary methods will not suffice.
  • Participants mention approximation techniques as a potential solution, although they recognize the time-consuming nature of such methods.
  • One participant challenges the validity of a proposed method by providing specific numerical values, indicating that the method does not account for the radius correctly.
  • Another participant asserts that solving the problem will inevitably involve transcendental equations, reiterating the complexity of the task.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the methods to find the radius. There are multiple competing views regarding the feasibility of using elementary methods versus the necessity of transcendental equations, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the importance of knowing the coordinates of the two points and the arc length, while others point out that arbitrary placement of the points complicates the problem. The discussion also touches on the limitations of geometric constructions without incorporating arc length.

uyger
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
How can I find the radius of a circle by knowing two points and its arc length? Do I have to use a numerical method to solve for a trigonometric equation or is there any algebraic or geometric method?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Orient the two points to lie on the horizontal (just makes description easier) and draw a line between them. The part of the arc that lies above halfway along this line is now a third point, draw a line vertically down from this point. Now draw a third line from one of your two original points to the new one drawn on the arc, the angle this new line makes with the vertical is the angle a fourth (and final) line needs to be drawn at from the other end of your newest line towards the vertical one to form an isosceles triangle with the two equal length sides being the radii.

Attached is an image which I'm sure will be easier to follow

2eob0v6.png
 
Last edited:
JHamm said:
Orient the two points to lie on the horizontal (just makes description easier) and draw a line between them. The part of the arc that lies above halfway along this line is now a third point, draw a line vertically down from this point. Now draw a third line from one of your two original points to the new one drawn on the arc, the angle this new line makes with the vertical is the angle a fourth (and final) line needs to be drawn at from the other end of your newest line towards the vertical one to form an isosceles triangle with the two equal length sides being the radii.

Attached is an image which I'm sure will be easier to follow

2eob0v6.png

If by the radii you mean the two segments marked with the orange lines, then no, that's not the radius. You can't just assume that the segment of arc that you picked forms half the circle.

I was thinking if you could find the curvature of the circle somehow, then you'd be done. This is a problem seeing as finding the curvature of any curve usually require you to know at least parametric equations of the curve. Do you have any more information regarding these two points, are they arbitrarily spread out on the circle?
 
JHamm said:
Orient the two points to lie on the horizontal (just makes description easier) and draw a line between them. The part of the arc that lies above halfway along this line is now a third point, draw a line vertically down from this point. Now draw a third line from one of your two original points to the new one drawn on the arc, the angle this new line makes with the vertical is the angle a fourth (and final) line needs to be drawn at from the other end of your newest line towards the vertical one to form an isosceles triangle with the two equal length sides being the radii.

Attached is an image which I'm sure will be easier to follow

2eob0v6.png
Thank you for the reply but as you did not use the length of the arc it is impossible to reach a solution by your way. Actually there are number of mistakes but I am sure you can notice them at a second glance. Again thank you for your effort.
DivisionByZro said:
If by the radii you mean the two segments marked with the orange lines, then no, that's not the radius. You can't just assume that the segment of arc that you picked forms half the circle.

I was thinking if you could find the curvature of the circle somehow, then you'd be done. This is a problem seeing as finding the curvature of any curve usually require you to know at least parametric equations of the curve. Do you have any more information regarding these two points, are they arbitrarily spread out on the circle?

Unfortunately, yes they are arbitrary.
 
So just to clear things up, by "two points known" you mean the coordinates are known? And the arc length is the length of the arc contained between the two points correct? (There are actually two ways to see this, any two points on a circle cut the circle into two parts of possibly different arc lengths). In either case, I don't think you can find the radius of the circle with the given information (at least not that I see right away). I'll keep thinking about it.
 
DivisionByZro said:
So just to clear things up, by "two points known" you mean the coordinates are known? And the arc length is the length of the arc contained between the two points correct? (There are actually two ways to see this, any two points on a circle cut the circle into two parts of possibly different arc lengths). In either case, I don't think you can find the radius of the circle with the given information (at least not that I see right away). I'll keep thinking about it.

Yes, the coordinates of the two points and the length of the arc between them are known. The solution that I get contains trigonometric identities. I can write it if you are curious, but what I need is an equation that is solvable by elementary methods.
 
This problem is not solvable by elementary methods. You are inevitably going to end up with a transcendental expression.

It is easily solvable by approximation techniques.
 
D H said:
This problem is not solvable by elementary methods. You are inevitably going to end up with a transcendental expression.

It is easily solvable by approximation techniques.

I did so. Since the process must be repeated, that will be time consuming but as you said and I thought, there seems to be no other way. Thank you for the answer.
 
DivisionByZro said:
If by the radii you mean the two segments marked with the orange lines, then no, that's not the radius. You can't just assume that the segment of arc that you picked forms half the circle.

No, the two angles marked \phi form the base of an isosceles triangle who's equal sides are the radius, the two lines marked with orange lines are just of equal length.

uyger said:
Thank you for the reply but as you did not use the length of the arc it is impossible to reach a solution by your way.

But the arc length has been used, \phi will become smaller with a larger arc length and larger with a smaller one.
 
  • #10
JHamm said:
No, the two angles marked \phi form the base of an isosceles triangle who's equal sides are the radius, the two lines marked with orange lines are just of equal length.
Nonsense.

Try your technique with an arc length of 14.1897054604163922812851617102553083 and the two points being the origin and (14,0). There's no room in that picture for the radius of the circle (which happens to be 25 in this example).
 
  • #11
D H said:
Nonsense.

Try your technique with an arc length of 14.1897054604163922812851617102553083 and the two points being the origin and (14,0). There's no room in that picture for the radius of the circle (which happens to be 25 in this example).

Maybe I didn't explain well enough because my method gets 25 no problem, taking your values I found the segment height (using a calculator online) to be 1, this gave me a base angle for my isosceles triangle of \tan^{-1} 7 and a base length of \sqrt{50} which therefore gives the equal sides a length of 25 each.
 
  • #12
JHamm said:
Maybe I didn't explain well enough
Maybe you didn't.

There's no escaping that solving this problem will require solving a transcendental equation of some form, and that is what uyger asked in the original post. (He just didn't know that that was what he was asking.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K